|
Author
|
Topic: Moons: their origin, age, & recession
|
Calypsis4
Member (Idle past 5241 days) Posts: 428 Joined: 09-29-2009
|
|
Message 61 of 222 (528522)
10-06-2009 11:17 AM
|
Reply to: Message 53 by onifre
10-06-2009 10:33 AM
|
|
Yes, love to. Can you explain why Young's equation are right yet do not match any others? Why is he right? Please explain... You mean DeYoung...among others. 1. Because the evolutionist formulas do not take into account the law of inverse variation as it relates to lunar regression. At least none that I have seen. 2. Quote: "From equation (1), the proportionality constant k is the product of the sixth power of the distance r, and the current recession rate. The present value of the recession rate is 4.4 0.6 cm/yr, or (4.4 0.6) x 10—2 m/yr.36—38 Therefore, k = 1.42 x 1050 m7/yr. With this value for k, the right hand side of equation 1 equals the present recession rate dr/dt, when r = the moon’s current orbital radius." Dr. Jonathan Henry.
Edited by Calypsis4, : addition
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 53 by onifre, posted 10-06-2009 10:33 AM | | onifre has replied |
|
Calypsis4
Member (Idle past 5241 days) Posts: 428 Joined: 09-29-2009
|
|
|
Message 62 of 222 (528527)
10-06-2009 11:23 AM
|
Reply to: Message 52 by Modulous
10-06-2009 10:32 AM
|
|
Yes really. But the fact that they orbit the same planet is not the only property they have. They differ on many others, as you say. Quite. Now think. Why is there so much difference in character, size, density, atmospheric conditions, etc.? Some of them are unique and unlike all others. Doesn't the variety tell you something?
Yes, they are different. Made of different things, with different origins, at different orbital distances, different masses, different densities and with different eccentricities. That's a lot of important variables. The bottom line is that they did not create themselves nor did they set themselves in orbit around the planets. No one has EVER observed a moon being captured by a planet, & no one has ever seen a moon develop in orbit around a planet since the days of Galileo until now. Cosmic evolution, like evolution in general is a myth. Edited by Calypsis4, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 52 by Modulous, posted 10-06-2009 10:32 AM | | Modulous has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 66 by Modulous, posted 10-06-2009 11:37 AM | | Calypsis4 has replied |
|
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2133 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: 01-12-2008
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 63 of 222 (528528)
10-06-2009 11:25 AM
|
Reply to: Message 56 by Calypsis4
10-06-2009 10:57 AM
|
|
All scientists are evolutionists?
Going further concerning the origin of the moons of our solar system. Question: 1. If the moons are celestial objects that originated within the planest themselves (not a popular theory) then how did they end up in orbit hundreds of thousands of miles from those planets? 2. If the moons were 'captured' by the planets then why has no one ever observed such a capture in the history of recorded science? How could it happen in the first place considering the Roche limit of each planet would cause the utter disintigration of such moons? 3. If the moons are merely collections of inter-solar debris/rock that was gravitationally pulled together then what observation of such an event could reinforce this possiblity? 4. Why do so many moons have retrograde orbits? Quote: "The moons Ananke, Carme, Pasipha and Sinope and many other small moons all orbit Jupiter in a retrograde direction. The moon Phoebe, thought to be a captured Kuiper belt object, and many other small moons all orbit Saturn in a retrograde direction. The moon Triton, thought to be a captured Kuiper belt object, orbits Neptune in a retrograde direction as do some small moons." Wikipedia. Evolutionists don't have a clue. Evolutionist is a term used by creationists to include all scientists who disagree with them. How Old is the Earth: Some Creationist Ages of the Earth I studied evolution and related subjects for six years in graduate school, and I don't remember the subject of planetary moons ever coming up, so I guess you are right for a change: in that area I don't have a clue. But I did learn enough about evolution to know that, in that field, you don't have a clue. You are just repeating your religious beliefs, while trying to dredge up any hint of a tad of evidence to support those beliefs and ignoring or misrepresenting anything that contradicts those beliefs. Creation "science" as usual, eh?
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 56 by Calypsis4, posted 10-06-2009 10:57 AM | | Calypsis4 has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 65 by Calypsis4, posted 10-06-2009 11:29 AM | | Coyote has not replied |
|
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3671 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: 06-16-2005
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 64 of 222 (528530)
10-06-2009 11:27 AM
|
Reply to: Message 61 by Calypsis4
10-06-2009 11:17 AM
|
|
Because the evolutionist formulas do not take into account the law of inverse variation as it relates to lunar regression.  really? you think physicists cannot calculate orbital decay mechanics, but can land a probe on Titan
At least none that I have seen. You wouldn't recognise correct physics if it fell on your head 
...Therefore, k = 1.42 x 1050 m7/yr. With this value for k, the right hand side of equation 1 equals the present recession rate dr/dt, when r = the moon’s current orbital radius." Dr. Jonathan Henry. And the justification for using this value of k for any time other than now is...??? we're waiting...
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 61 by Calypsis4, posted 10-06-2009 11:17 AM | | Calypsis4 has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 113 by Calypsis4, posted 10-06-2009 2:27 PM | | cavediver has not replied |
|
Calypsis4
Member (Idle past 5241 days) Posts: 428 Joined: 09-29-2009
|
|
|
Message 65 of 222 (528531)
10-06-2009 11:29 AM
|
Reply to: Message 63 by Coyote
10-06-2009 11:25 AM
|
|
Re: All scientists are evolutionists?
Evolutionist is a term used by creationists to include all scientists who disagree with them. Scientists who believe in evolution. It's a useless point. Why even argue about that?
I studied evolution and related subjects for six years in graduate school, and I don't remember the subject of planetary moons ever coming up, so I guess you are right for a change: in that area I don't have a clue. Then I rest my case as far as you are concerned. Have a nice day.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 63 by Coyote, posted 10-06-2009 11:25 AM | | Coyote has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 72 by onifre, posted 10-06-2009 12:10 PM | | Calypsis4 has replied |
|
Modulous
Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: 05-01-2005
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 66 of 222 (528534)
10-06-2009 11:37 AM
|
Reply to: Message 62 by Calypsis4
10-06-2009 11:23 AM
|
|
Quite. Now think. Why is there so much difference in character, size, density, atmospheric conditions, etc.? Some of them are unique and unlike all others. Doesn't the variety tell you something? Yes. They are all unique. All moons, planets and stars are unique. This tells me that they have different histories.
The bottom line is that they did not create themselves nor did they set themselves in orbit around the planets. No - I wouldn't put it like that either. The bottom line is that processes occurred and they were results of those processes, the same can be said about their current positions.
No one has EVER observed a moon being captured by a planet, & no one has ever seen a moon develop in orbit around a planet since the days of Galileo until now. Yes. Nobody has EVER seen Halley's comet orbit four times, or an electron. What difference does it matter if a person has seen something or not?
Cosmic evolution, like evolution in general is a myth. Maybe so - but being a myth does not mean it is false. And you saying it is false does not mean that it is false either. So - is your only argument that nobody has seen it happen, therefore it is false? Because I that can easily be shown to fail as an argument. Unless you think that murderers should be able to say 'Nobody has ever seen me commit murder therefore I am not guilty' and have a good point? Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 62 by Calypsis4, posted 10-06-2009 11:23 AM | | Calypsis4 has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 69 by Calypsis4, posted 10-06-2009 11:53 AM | | Modulous has replied |
|
Calypsis4
Member (Idle past 5241 days) Posts: 428 Joined: 09-29-2009
|
|
|
Message 67 of 222 (528539)
10-06-2009 11:48 AM
|
Reply to: Message 60 by cavediver
10-06-2009 11:14 AM
|
|
3. If the moons are merely collections of inter-solar debris/rock that was gravitationally pulled together then what observation of such an event could reinforce this possiblity? 'Do we need one?' 4. Why do so many moons have retrograde orbits? 'Because they were captured that way? Because collisions have left them orbiting that way?' Such answers are so pitifully shallow that it's hardly worth answering. 'Do we need one?' Science is based upon empirical investigation.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 60 by cavediver, posted 10-06-2009 11:14 AM | | cavediver has replied |
|
Calypsis4
Member (Idle past 5241 days) Posts: 428 Joined: 09-29-2009
|
|
|
Message 68 of 222 (528540)
10-06-2009 11:51 AM
|
Reply to: Message 67 by Calypsis4
10-06-2009 11:48 AM
|
|
No - I wouldn't put it like that either. The bottom line is that processes occurred and they were results of those processes, the same can be said about their current positions. 'Processes'? You mean processes like angular momentum? Processes like gravitational pull that has yet to produce a single observed example of a planet or a moon being formed? Oh, those processes.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 67 by Calypsis4, posted 10-06-2009 11:48 AM | | Calypsis4 has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 76 by Kitsune, posted 10-06-2009 12:36 PM | | Calypsis4 has replied |
|
Calypsis4
Member (Idle past 5241 days) Posts: 428 Joined: 09-29-2009
|
|
|
Message 69 of 222 (528541)
10-06-2009 11:53 AM
|
Reply to: Message 66 by Modulous
10-06-2009 11:37 AM
|
|
empirical
Yes. Nobody has EVER seen Halley's comet orbit four times, or an electron. What difference does it matter if a person has seen something or not? I would kindly suggest you look up the definition of 'empirical investigation'. Have a nice day.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 66 by Modulous, posted 10-06-2009 11:37 AM | | Modulous has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 186 by Modulous, posted 10-06-2009 8:39 PM | | Calypsis4 has not replied |
|
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3671 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: 06-16-2005
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 70 of 222 (528542)
10-06-2009 11:53 AM
|
Reply to: Message 67 by Calypsis4
10-06-2009 11:48 AM
|
|
Science is based upon empirical investigation. Science begins with hypothesis. Why would debris/rock not be capable of being gravitationally bound into a moon? What do you think could prevent this? If moons are captured, why could they not be captured into retrograde orbits? Why could a sufficiently large collision not lead to a retrograde orbit? These are fine hypotheses which we can explore (as many have done and we can go dig out the papers if necessary) so why are you raising these hypotheses as major issues?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 67 by Calypsis4, posted 10-06-2009 11:48 AM | | Calypsis4 has not replied |
|
onifre
Member (Idle past 2978 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: 02-20-2008
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 71 of 222 (528547)
10-06-2009 12:08 PM
|
Reply to: Message 61 by Calypsis4
10-06-2009 11:17 AM
|
|
Because the evolutionist formulas... Evolutionist??? What are you talking about? This is a discussion on planetary formation, what does evolution have to do with it? You're on the wrong thread, dude. You do understand that evolutionary biologist have no formula for planetary formation, right?
Quote: "From equation (1), the proportionality constant k is the product of the sixth power of the distance r, and the current recession rate. The present value of the recession rate is 4.4 0.6 cm/yr, or (4.4 0.6) x 10—2 m/yr.36—38 Therefore, k = 1.42 x 1050 m7/yr. With this value for k, the right hand side of equation 1 equals the present recession rate dr/dt, when r = the moon’s current orbital radius." Dr. Jonathan Henry. And I'll repeat my original question, as cavediver has requested as well, why the constant (k)...? You have yet to answer this... Just answer where (k) comes from so we can continue from there. Why do you keep evading this question? - Oni
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 61 by Calypsis4, posted 10-06-2009 11:17 AM | | Calypsis4 has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 74 by Calypsis4, posted 10-06-2009 12:25 PM | | onifre has replied |
|
onifre
Member (Idle past 2978 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: 02-20-2008
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 72 of 222 (528548)
10-06-2009 12:10 PM
|
Reply to: Message 65 by Calypsis4
10-06-2009 11:29 AM
|
|
Re: All scientists are evolutionists?
Scientists who believe in evolution... ...have nothing to do with planetary formation. Why do you keep bringing this up? - Oni
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 65 by Calypsis4, posted 10-06-2009 11:29 AM | | Calypsis4 has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 73 by Calypsis4, posted 10-06-2009 12:15 PM | | onifre has not replied |
|
Calypsis4
Member (Idle past 5241 days) Posts: 428 Joined: 09-29-2009
|
|
|
Message 73 of 222 (528550)
10-06-2009 12:15 PM
|
Reply to: Message 72 by onifre
10-06-2009 12:10 PM
|
|
Re: All scientists are evolutionists?
have nothing to do with planetary formation. Why do you keep bringing this up. Once again, you stuck your foot in your mouth. You would do well to read all my posts before you make such statements. I said above, "Scientists who believe in evolution. It's a useless point. Why even argue about that?" It is a moot point to argue it because so many astronomers believe in cosmic evolution (i.e. Carl Sagan did, Paul Davies, Alton Harp, etc.). Let it go.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 72 by onifre, posted 10-06-2009 12:10 PM | | onifre has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 85 by Izanagi, posted 10-06-2009 1:07 PM | | Calypsis4 has not replied |
|
Calypsis4
Member (Idle past 5241 days) Posts: 428 Joined: 09-29-2009
|
|
|
Message 74 of 222 (528552)
10-06-2009 12:25 PM
|
Reply to: Message 71 by onifre
10-06-2009 12:08 PM
|
|
k = constant
And I'll repeat my original question, as cavediver has requested as well, why the constant (k)...? You have yet to answer this... Just answer where (k) comes from so we can continue from there Have you even had physics? Yes/no? I thought it would be clear by now. Nonetheless, k is a constant = present speed: 0.04 m/year. We already know that since tidal forces are inversely proportional to the cube of the distance then it follows that the recession rate of the moon is inversely proportional to the 6th power of the distance. This is because the earth and moon both effect each other and it is reciprocal.
Edited by Calypsis4, : addition
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 71 by onifre, posted 10-06-2009 12:08 PM | | onifre has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 77 by cavediver, posted 10-06-2009 12:40 PM | | Calypsis4 has not replied | | | Message 79 by onifre, posted 10-06-2009 12:52 PM | | Calypsis4 has not replied |
|
mark24
Member (Idle past 5222 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: 12-01-2001
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 75 of 222 (528553)
10-06-2009 12:35 PM
|
Reply to: Message 47 by Calypsis4
10-06-2009 10:08 AM
|
|
Calypsis,
But Jesus Christ did. But you didn't. You berate others for believing things they haven't seen, yet do it yourself. Special pleading. That you accept a bronze/iron age mythology as being true doesn't change the *fact* that [i]you[i] are involved in special pleading. Mark
There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 47 by Calypsis4, posted 10-06-2009 10:08 AM | | Calypsis4 has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 78 by Calypsis4, posted 10-06-2009 12:45 PM | | mark24 has replied |
|
™ Version 4.2